From owner-freebsd-pf@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 28 10:32:22 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B0F106566B; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:32:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@my.gd) Received: from mail-fx0-f54.google.com (mail-fx0-f54.google.com [209.85.161.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EB648FC0A; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:32:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxm16 with SMTP id 16so3297475fxm.13 for ; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:32:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.87.5 with SMTP id u5mr411048fal.48.1296210741264; Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:32:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from dfleuriot.local ([83.167.62.196]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o17sm6355535fal.25.2011.01.28.02.32.20 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:32:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4D429B33.2010402@my.gd> Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:32:19 +0100 From: Damien Fleuriot User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeremy Chadwick References: <4D41417A.20904@my.gd> <1DB50624F8348F48840F2E2CF6040A9D014BEB8833@orsmsx508.amr.corp.intel.com> <4D41B197.6070308@my.gd> <201101280146.57028.wmn@siberianet.ru> <4D41C9FC.10503@my.gd> <20110127195741.GA40449@icarus.home.lan> <4D41D7BE.3030208@my.gd> <20110127205845.GA41537@icarus.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <20110127205845.GA41537@icarus.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Sergey Lobanov , "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org" , "freebsd-pf@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: High interrupt rate on a PF box + performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-pf@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Technical discussion and general questions about packet filter \(pf\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 10:32:22 -0000 On 1/27/11 9:58 PM, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > > Kernel folks should be able to talk about this in detail, but my > understanding is that the kernel itself supports multiple threads, but > the question is whether or not the drivers or relevant "pieces" (e.g. > igb(4) driver, pf, TCP stack, etc.) support SMP (multi-core/threading) > or not. I think this is referred to as something being "MPSAFE" or not. > > The things you see during boot -- [ITHREAD], [FILTER], and > [GIANT-LOCKED] play a role as well, but I think those indicate what > style of locking is used (since some drivers/features might not work > properly in a multiprocessor environment). > > I'm trying to avoid correlating "multiprocessor safe" with "makes use of > multiple processors". I'm an old 65xxx CPU guy, this SMP stuff is still > "new technology" to me when it comes to actual operations/mechanics. > > Regarding TCP and SMP, this is regularly touched on in the FreeBSD > Status Reports that go out (always worth reading). See "TCP SMP > scalability project": > > http://www.freebsd.org/news/status/report-2010-10-2010-12.html > > I know all this information is technical of course and doesn't answer > your question directly. I wish there was something more authoritative > when it came to this question. > Thanks for your time explaining all this, I'll have a look at your link, even if it may or may not apply directly to our case, it'll still be interesting material. I'll have to poke around for information about the kernel and how it works with multithreading :)